EX PARTE William T. HARRINGTON
v.
Big Sky Environmental, LLC, Gabriel Kim, and Clayton " Lanny" Young). In re William T. Harrington
PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
Jefferson Circuit Court, CV-16-904776; Court of Civil
Appeals, 2170566
Page 1233
J.
Gusty Yearout of Yearout & Traylor, PC, Birmingham; and J.
Stanton Glasscox of Glasscox Law Firm, LLC, Tuscaloosa, for
petitioner.
Gregg
M. McCormick and Matthew I. Penfield of Bressler Amery &
Ross, P.C., Birmingham, for respondents Big Sky
Environmental, LLC, and Gabriel Kim.
BOLIN,
Justice.
William
T. Harrington petitioned this Court for certiorari review of
the Court of Civil Appeals' order dismissing his appeal
as untimely.
Procedural
History
On
December 23, 2016, Harrington sued Big Sky Environmental,
LLC, Gabriel Kim, and Clayton "Lanny" Young,
seeking compensatory and punitive damages resulting from a
dispute over an employment agreement. Harrington alleged
breach of contract, negligence, wantonness, fraud,
suppression, and deceit. On March 10, 2017, Big Sky and Kim
filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R.
Civ. P.
On
April 5, 2017, Harrington filed an amended complaint.
Harrington again named Big Sky, Kim, and Young as defendants.
He added as defendants Exoro Global, LLC ("Exoro
Global"), and Exoro Global Capital, LLC ("Exoro
Capital"). He once again alleged breach of contract,
negligence, wantonness, fraud, suppression, and deceit.
Harrington listed Kim as the "agent for service" of
process for both Exoro Global and Exoro Capital. Harrington
filed a notice to serve Exoro Global and Exoro Capital by
certified mail. It appears that Exoro Global and Exoro
Capital have a business interest in Big Sky. On April 10,
2017, Big Sky and Kim filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P. In their
motion to dismiss, Big Sky and Kim stated in a footnote that
neither Exoro Global nor Exoro Capital had been served.
On
April 28, 2017, Harrington filed a second amended complaint
in which he named Big Sky, Kim, Young, Exoro Global, and
Exoro Capital as defendants, again alleging breach of
contract, negligence,
Page 1234
wantonness, fraud, suppression, and deceit. Kim was again
listed as the "agent for service" for Exoro Global
and Exoro Capital. On May 12, 2017, Big Sky and Kim filed a
motion to dismiss Harrington's second amended complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted under Rule 12(b)(6).[1]
On
September 28, 2017, the trial court entered an order
dismissing the claims against Big Sky and Kim with prejudice
on the ground that there was no valid employment contract.
The trial court then set the case for a status review on
November 7, 2017. On October 26, 2017, Harrington filed a
motion purportedly seeking to "alter, amend, or vacate
the judgment," arguing that a valid employment contract
existed. On December 20, 2017, the trial court denied
Harrington's motion.
On
January 26, 2018, the trial court entered the following
order:
"The Court has been made aware that the parties are in
disagreement over whether or not its order of September 28,
2017 is final and in accordance with Rule ...